Hawaii
Hawaii Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 24, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 24, 2026. How we verify our legal content
Yes, smart glasses are legal to own and wear in Hawaii, but recording with them involves a hybrid legal framework that is more nuanced than a flat one-party consent rule. Under HRS 803-42(b)(3)(A), a participant in a conversation may record it without the other party's consent. A separate layer, HRS 711-1111, adds an all-party consent requirement for recording inside a private place, making Hawaii one of the more complex states for smart glasses users.
Are Smart Glasses Legal to Own and Wear in Hawaii?
Yes. Hawaii has no statute that restricts owning, purchasing, or wearing smart glasses such as Meta Ray-Ban AI glasses. The device is sold freely throughout the state and its possession raises no legal issue under Hawaii or federal law.
The legal analysis begins only when the glasses are used to capture audio or video. Whether a particular recording is lawful depends on the content captured, the location, and whether you are a participant in any conversation being recorded.
Recording Video in Public vs. Private Spaces
Public spaces
Recording video in a public space (a street, sidewalk, park, retail store, beach, or other location generally accessible to the public) is lawful in Hawaii under both state and federal law. When a person is in public, they have a reduced reasonable expectation of privacy from being seen or filmed.
The federal Wiretap Act's definition of an "oral communication" under 18 U.S.C. 2510(2) is limited to communications uttered under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Silent video in public does not trigger the federal wiretap statute. Hawaii law is consistent with this framework: the consent rules in HRS 803-42 govern audio interception, not video capture alone.
Smart glasses worn on a Honolulu sidewalk, at Waikiki Beach, at a public park, or in a publicly accessible building generally do not create legal exposure from video capture alone.
Semi-public and private spaces
The analysis shifts materially in semi-public or private settings. A private home, a hotel room, a medical office, a closed office, or a restaurant booth during a quiet conversation can give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the content of spoken words. Under Justice Harlan's concurring opinion in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361 (1967), the constitutional test requires both an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.
Hawaii courts apply this framework when evaluating whether a conversation is "private" within the meaning of HRS 803-42 and whether a location is a "private place" within the meaning of HRS 711-1111.
Recording inside private places
HRS 711-1111(1)(d) makes it a misdemeanor to install or use a device for recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in a private place without consent of the persons entitled to privacy in that place. The statute also covers using a device placed outside a private place to intercept sounds originating inside that would not ordinarily be audible from outside.
This rule operates independently of the wiretap consent framework. Even if one-party consent is satisfied under HRS 803-42 (meaning you are a participant in the conversation), you may still be guilty of a misdemeanor if you use a recording device in a private place without consent of those entitled to privacy there. The Hawaii Supreme Court confirmed this principle in State v. Lo, 66 Haw. 653, 675 P.2d 754 (1983), holding that HRS 803-42 does not permit recording in a private place without the consent of those entitled to privacy in that space.
A misdemeanor in Hawaii carries up to one year imprisonment and a fine of up to $2,000 under HRS 706-663 and HRS 706-640.
Recording Audio and Hawaii's One-Party Consent Rule
The statute: HRS 803-42(b)(3)(A)
Hawaii's Wiretap Act, HRS 803-42, governs the interception of wire, oral, and electronic communications. Subsection (b)(3)(A) provides the one-party consent rule:
It is not unlawful for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication when that person is a party to the communication, or when one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to the interception, unless the communication is intercepted for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act.
This is the federal baseline codified in state law. If you are actively participating in a conversation, speaking with the other person while they speak with you, you may record that conversation under HRS 803-42 without notifying or obtaining consent from the other parties.
The canonical precedent: State v. Okubo
The Hawaii Supreme Court applied HRS 803-42(b)(3) in State v. Okubo, 67 Haw. 197, 682 P.2d 79 (1984), and held that a recording made by a participant to a conversation does not violate the Hawaii Wiretap Act because one party, the recorder, consented. Okubo is the canonical Hawaii authority confirming the one-party consent rule and establishing that a participant's recording does not violate Article I, Section 7 of the Hawaii Constitution under ordinary circumstances.
What the one-party rule covers, and does not cover
The one-party consent rule under HRS 803-42 covers the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications by a participant. It does not authorize:
- Recording a private conversation between two other people when you are not a participant in that conversation.
- Installing or using a recording device in a private place without consent of those entitled to privacy there (that triggers HRS 711-1111 regardless of the wiretap rule).
- Recording for the purpose of committing any criminal or tortious act; the statute expressly forecloses that use.
Under State v. Lee, 67 Haw. 307, 686 P.2d 816 (1984), wearing a body-mounted recording device by a consenting party does not constitute an "installation" for purposes of the restriction in HRS 803-42(b)(3) on installation in a private place. The case clarifies that a participant wearing a recording device (analogous to smart glasses capturing a conversation the wearer is part of) remains a lawful one-party recording.
Practical application for smart glasses
For a smart glasses wearer in Hawaii:
Recording a conversation you are having with another person, whether at a coffee shop, in an office, or during a business meeting, is lawful under HRS 803-42(b)(3)(A) as long as you are a genuine participant. You do not need to disclose the recording.
Recording a private conversation between other people that you are not part of is not covered by the one-party rule. If you hold the glasses to capture a conversation happening nearby without being a participant, HRS 803-42(b)(3)(A) requires the prior consent of at least one party to the conversation; without it, the interception is a class C felony under HRS 803-42(a).
Recording any conversation inside a private place while using the glasses as a device to capture sounds in that place additionally implicates HRS 711-1111, regardless of whether you are a participant.
For more detail on Hawaii's hybrid consent framework, see the Hawaii Recording Laws page.
Where You Cannot Record: Voyeurism and Unlawful Surveillance
Regardless of consent rules, Hawaii law absolutely prohibits recording in locations where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy from visual observation of their body or intimate conduct.
Violation of Privacy in the Second Degree: HRS 711-1111
HRS 711-1111 covers a range of privacy offenses that are misdemeanors, including:
- Installing or using a device for recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in a private place without consent of those entitled to privacy there.
- Installing or using a device outside a private place to intercept sounds originating inside that would not ordinarily be audible from outside.
- Covert recording of intimate areas underneath clothing in public (upskirt-style recording).
- Trespassing for the purpose of eavesdropping or surveillance in a private place.
A misdemeanor conviction carries up to one year imprisonment and a fine of up to $2,000.
Violation of Privacy in the First Degree: HRS 711-1110.9
HRS 711-1110.9 is a Class C felony, carrying up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $10,000 under HRS 706-660 and HRS 706-640, and covers three categories of conduct:
First, intentionally or knowingly installing or using a device in a private place without consent to observe, record, amplify, or broadcast another person in a stage of undress or sexual activity in that place.
Second, knowingly disclosing or threatening to disclose an image or video of another identifiable person in the nude or engaging in sexual conduct without the depicted person's consent, with intent to substantially harm the depicted person or as an act of revenge or retribution. This is Hawaii's nonconsensual intimate-image (NCII) statute, added by Act 116, Session Laws 2014, and strengthened by Act 114, Session Laws 2018.
Third, intentionally creating or disclosing a synthetic composite image or video that uses the recognizable physical characteristics of a known person depicted nude or engaging in sexual conduct, with intent to substantially harm that person. This deepfake provision was added by Act 59, Session Laws 2021, and it remains in force independent of any election-related deepfake legislation.
The covert appearance of smart glasses, which look exactly like ordinary eyewear to bystanders, does not create any exception to these prohibitions. The hidden nature of the recording can aggravate the offense in practice.
The locations where these statutes apply most clearly include restrooms, locker rooms, gym changing areas, hotel rooms, private residences, medical examination rooms, and fitting rooms.
Federal law adds a parallel floor: 18 U.S.C. 1801, the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act, separately prohibits recording a person's private areas on federal property without consent.
The rule is absolute: no consent from any third party, and no location, can legalize recording someone's intimate areas in a space where they reasonably expect privacy from visual observation.
Recording Law Enforcement in Hawaii
Hawaii provides unusually strong legal protection for people who record police officers and other law enforcement personnel.
Statutory right: HRS 711-1111(1)(d)
Since 2016, HRS 711-1111(1)(d) contains an explicit statutory carve-out: it is not a violation of privacy to make a video or audio recording or take a photograph of a law enforcement officer while the officer is performing their duties in a public place, or under circumstances in which the officer has no reasonable expectation of privacy, provided the person is not interfering with the officer's ability to maintain safety and control, secure crime scenes and accident sites, protect the integrity and confidentiality of investigations, and protect public safety and order.
This statutory right was added by Act 164, Session Laws 2016. It is a direct legislative response to concerns about police accountability and provides protection that operates independently of federal constitutional law.
First Amendment protection: Ninth Circuit
Hawaii also sits within the Ninth Circuit, where Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436 (9th Cir. 1995) recognized a First Amendment right to film matters of public interest, including police officers performing their duties in public. Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 899 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2018) relied on Fordyce in recognizing that the First Amendment protects the right to photograph and record matters of public interest, including law enforcement officers engaged in the exercise of their official duties in public places.
Both decisions are binding in Hawaii's federal courts. The combination of the statutory right under HRS 711-1111(1)(d) and the federal First Amendment right under Fordyce and Askins makes Hawaii's record-the-police framework one of the most protective in the country.
For smart glasses wearers, this means recording a police encounter in public, whether a traffic stop, a street interaction, or a public demonstration, is lawful in Hawaii. You may not interfere with the officer's duties while recording.
Facial Recognition and Biometric Privacy
Hawaii does not have a dedicated biometric privacy statute equivalent to Illinois's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA), Texas's Capture or Use of Biometric Identifier Act (CUBI), or Washington's biometric identifier law (RCW Chapter 19.375).
Under Hawaii state law alone, using smart glasses with a facial recognition application to scan and identify persons in public does not trigger a standalone state biometric statute the way it would in Illinois (where BIPA imposes up to $5,000 per person in statutory damages for capturing face geometry without written consent) or Texas (where CUBI allows civil penalties of up to $25,000 per violation for commercial capture without consent).
Hawaii residents and visitors are not without recourse, however. Federal law, common-law privacy torts, and Hawaii's own privacy framework still apply. Under Restatement (Second) of Torts 652B, intentionally intruding upon the solitude or seclusion of another person in a manner highly offensive to a reasonable person creates civil liability regardless of whether any biometric statute applies. The act of covert recording itself can create that liability without requiring publication of the footage.
The biometric risk is most acute through third-party software integrations. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses provide a camera but do not natively run facial recognition. The legal exposure arises when a user pairs the glasses with a third-party facial recognition application to identify individuals. In October 2024, Harvard students demonstrated the "I-XRAY" system by pairing Meta Ray-Ban glasses with a reverse facial-recognition search engine to identify strangers in real time and retrieve their home addresses and partial Social Security numbers within minutes of capturing a face. That demonstration used third-party software, not Meta's own systems. Hawaii users who replicate this type of integration face civil tort liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts 652B, and potentially face liability under the biometric laws of states where identified persons reside, particularly under Illinois, Texas, or Washington law.
Penalties Summary
| Offense | Statute | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful interception of wire, oral, or electronic communication | HRS 803-42(a) | Class C felony | 5 years / $10,000 fine |
| Recording in a private place without consent (non-undress) | HRS 711-1111(1)(d) | Misdemeanor | 1 year / $2,000 fine |
| Recording person in undress/sexual activity in private place | HRS 711-1110.9(1)(a) | Class C felony | 5 years / $10,000 fine |
| Nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images (NCII) | HRS 711-1110.9(1)(b) | Class C felony | 5 years / $10,000 fine |
| Deepfake intimate imagery using known person's likeness | HRS 711-1110.9(1)(c) | Class C felony | 5 years / $10,000 fine |
| Federal Wiretap Act violation | 18 U.S.C. 2511 | Federal crime | 5 years / $10,000 min civil |
Beyond criminal penalties, HRS 803-48 provides a civil cause of action for persons whose wire, oral, or electronic communications are unlawfully intercepted. A plaintiff may recover the greater of actual damages plus violator profits, or statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, plus punitive damages where appropriate and reasonable attorney's fees and litigation costs. This is a robust civil remedy that significantly exceeds the federal Wiretap Act's civil floor in practical terms when violations extend over multiple days.
Practical Tips for Smart Glasses Users in Hawaii
Know the hybrid rule. Hawaii is one-party consent under HRS 803-42 for audio interception, but all-party consent for recording inside a private place under HRS 711-1111. Being a participant in a conversation does not automatically authorize recording if you are inside a private place without the consent of those entitled to privacy there. These two rules operate independently.
Keep the LED active. Meta's Ray-Ban AI glasses include a built-in capture LED near the right frame that illuminates whenever the camera is recording video, taking a photo, or streaming live. Hawaii law does not currently mandate recording indicators for wearables, but deliberately obscuring the LED removes the only visible signal that recording is occurring, which directly strengthens evidence of covert recording intent if a dispute arises under HRS 711-1111.
Disclose before recording in private settings. Even when the one-party consent rule under HRS 803-42 technically permits a participant to record a conversation without disclosure, recording inside a private place (an office, a home, a hotel room) without consent of those entitled to privacy there creates misdemeanor exposure under HRS 711-1111. In private settings, disclosing the recording at the outset eliminates that additional legal layer entirely.
Never record in locker rooms or restrooms. The prohibition under HRS 711-1110.9 on recording a person in a state of undress in a private place is a Class C felony. Remove the glasses before entering any space where people have a clear expectation of privacy from visual observation. Hawaii's tourist infrastructure, including beach changing facilities, hotel pools, and resort locker rooms, makes this a practical concern for visitors.
Recording police: you are protected. Hawaii's statutory carve-out in HRS 711-1111(1)(d) and the Ninth Circuit's First Amendment holdings in Fordyce and Askins give Hawaii residents and visitors clear legal authority to record law enforcement in public. Do not interfere with the officer's duties, and let the LED remain visible.
Facial recognition adds risk. Hawaii has no biometric statute, but using smart glasses to identify strangers through facial recognition software exposes you to common-law tort liability and potentially to the laws of states where the identified person resides, especially Illinois, Texas, or Washington.
Driving caution. Hawaii's distracted-driving statutes focus on handheld electronic device use. No Hawaii statute as of June 2026 specifically addresses wearable display glasses while driving. Navigation use via smart glasses is likely analogous to a mounted GPS. Using smart glasses for live streaming, video calls, or social media interaction while driving raises the same distracted-driving exposure as any electronic device distraction, and the legal status remains unsettled in Hawaii as elsewhere.
More Hawaii Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Hawaii a one-party or two-party consent state for recording?
Hawaii is a hybrid. For the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications, HRS 803-42(b)(3)(A) follows a one-party consent rule: a participant in a conversation may record it without the other parties' knowledge. However, HRS 711-1111(1)(d) separately requires all-party consent for installing or using a recording device inside a private place. The result is that Hawaii is one-party for audio interception generally, but all-party for recording inside private places.
Can I record a conversation in Hawaii with my smart glasses without telling anyone?
If you are a genuine participant in the conversation and the conversation is not taking place inside a private place, yes. HRS 803-42(b)(3)(A) permits participant recording without disclosure, as confirmed by the Hawaii Supreme Court in State v. Okubo (1984). If the conversation takes place inside a private place such as a home, hotel room, or closed office, HRS 711-1111 additionally requires consent of those entitled to privacy in that place.
What is the penalty for illegal recording in Hawaii?
Unlawful interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications under HRS 803-42(a) is a Class C felony: up to 5 years imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Unauthorized recording in a private place (non-undress context) under HRS 711-1111 is a misdemeanor: up to 1 year imprisonment and a $2,000 fine. Recording a person in a state of undress in a private place under HRS 711-1110.9 is a Class C felony: up to 5 years and a $10,000 fine. Civil damages under HRS 803-48 add the greater of $100 per day or $10,000, plus punitive damages and attorney fees.
Can I record a police officer with smart glasses in Hawaii?
Yes. HRS 711-1111(1)(d), as amended by Act 164 in 2016, expressly permits recording law enforcement officers performing their duties in a public place, or anywhere they have no reasonable expectation of privacy, provided you do not interfere with their official duties. The Ninth Circuit's First Amendment holdings in Fordyce v. City of Seattle (1995) and Askins v. DHS (2018) independently protect this right in Hawaii's federal courts.
What is the difference between HRS 711-1110.9 and HRS 711-1111?
HRS 711-1111 is Violation of Privacy in the Second Degree, a misdemeanor. It covers recording in a private place without consent, covert upskirt recording, and related offenses. HRS 711-1110.9 is Violation of Privacy in the First Degree, a Class C felony. It covers recording a person in a state of undress or sexual activity in a private place, nonconsensual disclosure of intimate images (NCII), and AI-generated deepfake intimate imagery using the likeness of a known person.
Can I film on the beach or at a public park in Hawaii with smart glasses?
Yes. Hawaii's public beaches, parks, and other publicly accessible outdoor spaces are areas where persons have a reduced reasonable expectation of privacy from being observed or filmed. Video-only recording in these public spaces is generally lawful. Audio recording of a conversation you are participating in is also lawful under HRS 803-42(b)(3)(A). Recording a person in a state of undress in a beach changing facility or other enclosed space carries a different analysis under HRS 711-1110.9.
Does Hawaii have a biometric privacy law that applies to smart glasses?
No. Hawaii has no dedicated biometric privacy statute comparable to Illinois BIPA, Texas CUBI, or Washington RCW 19.375. Using smart glasses with facial recognition in Hawaii does not trigger a state biometric statute, though common-law privacy torts under Restatement (Second) of Torts 652B still apply, and you may face liability under the laws of the state where an identified person resides.
Are Meta Ray-Ban smart glasses legal in Hawaii?
Yes, the device is legal to own and wear. The legality of use depends on what you record, where, and whether you are a participant in any conversation you capture. Hawaii's hybrid consent framework (one-party for audio interception, all-party for recording inside private places) means wearers must assess both layers before recording. Meta's capture LED is a useful transparency mechanism, and deliberately covering it strengthens evidence of covert recording intent.
Updates
Corrected the descriptions of State v. Lee, Askins v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Katz v. United States to what those opinions actually say.
Corrected the explanation of recording a nearby conversation you are not part of: Hawaii law requires the prior consent of at least one party, not all parties, and removed an inaccurate count of states with biometric privacy laws.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 803: ARRESTS, SEARCHES, SEARCH WARRANTS
§ 803-42Interception, access, and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications, use of pen register, trap and trace device, and mobile tracking device prohibitedIn forcecited in 21 of our articles
(a) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this part, any person who: (1) Intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; (2) Intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any wire, oral, or electronic communication when: (A) Such a device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other similar connection used in wire communication; or (B) Such a device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; (3) Intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this part; (4) Intentionally uses, or endeavors to use, the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication, knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-23 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 14 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Lo (1983) held HRS 803-42(b)(3) barred police from secretly installing recording devices in a hotel room even though one participant consented, and suppressed the evidence. State v. Lee (1984) held a recorder worn by a consenting participant is not an installation in a private place, so no violation.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Lo (Hawaii Supreme Court 1983, 66 Haw. 653)✓Agents wired a hotel room and recorded a doctor lured there by a cooperating patient; the Hawaii Supreme Court held the statute bars installing a recording device in any private place without the consent of those entitled to privacy, and affirmed suppression.
- State v. Okubo (Hawaii Supreme Court 1984, 67 Haw. 197)✓Police recorded roughly forty bribery conversations using body recorders and phone taps with the participating officers' consent; the Hawaii Supreme Court found the consensual monitoring valid under the statute and the state constitution.
- State v. Lee (Hawaii Supreme Court 1984, 67 Haw. 307)✓An officer posing as a patient wore a recorder into a doctor's private office; the Hawaii Supreme Court held a device worn on a participant's body is not an installation in a private place, so the statute was not violated, distinguishing Lo.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent State Rules, Hawaii Audio Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules and Penalties, Hawaii Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance and Privacy Rights
§ 803-48Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
Any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is accessed, intercepted, disclosed, or used in violation of this part shall[:] (1) Have a civil cause of action against any person who accesses, intercepts, discloses, or uses, or procures any other person to access, intercept, disclose, or use the communications[;] and (2) Be entitled to recover from any such person: (A) The greater of[:] (i) The sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation[;] or (ii) Statutory damages of the greater of $100 a day for each day of violation or $10,000; (B) Punitive damages, where appropriate; and (C) A reasonable attorney's fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. The aggrieved person may also seek and be awarded such preliminary, and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate. A good faith reliance on a court order shall constitute a complete defense to any civil action brought under this part. [L 1978, c 218, pt of §2; am L 1986, c 303, §8; am L 1989, c 164, §10; am L 2006, c 200, pt of §4]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Also relied on in: Hawaii AI Meeting Recording Laws (2026), Hawaii Surveillance Camera Laws: Complete 2026 Guide, Hawaii Video Recording Laws: Privacy Rules and Consent Requirements
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 711: OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
§ 711-1111Violation of privacy in the second degreeIn forcecited in 20 of our articles
(1) A person commits the offense of violation of privacy in the second degree if, except in the execution of a public duty or as authorized by law, the person intentionally: (a) Trespasses on property for the purpose of subjecting anyone to eavesdropping or other surveillance in a private place; (b) Peers or peeps into a window or other opening of a dwelling or other structure adapted for sojourn or overnight accommodations for the purpose of spying on the occupant thereof or invading the privacy of another person with a lewd or unlawful purpose, under circumstances in which a reasonable person in the dwelling or other structure would not expect to be observed; (c) Trespasses on property for the sexual gratification of the actor; (d) Installs or uses, or both, in any private place, without consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein, any means or device for observing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting sounds or events in that place other than another person in a stage of undress or sexual activity; provided that this paragraph shall not prohibit a person from making a video or audio recording or taking a photograph of a law enforcement officer while the…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 10 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Hawaii decisions have construed HRS 711-1111 mainly alongside neighboring statutes. State v. Kaakimaka (2026) read subsections (1)(d) and (1)(e) as an inside and outside pair while construing the first-degree offense. State v. Lee (1984) treated 711-1111(1) as drawn from Model Penal Code 250.12 in reading the wiretap statute.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Lee (Hawaii Supreme Court 1984, 67 Haw. 307)✓An undercover officer wearing a recorder taped conversations in a doctor's private office; construing the wiretap consent provision drawn from HRS 711-1111(1)(b) and (c), the court held a body-worn device is not an "installation" in a private place, so the tapes were admissible.
- State v. Kaakimaka (Hawaii Supreme Court 2026)“…711-1110.9 and second degree violation of privacy under HRS § 711-1111 (2014 & Supp. 2025) convinces me that…”
- State v. Lester (Hawaii Supreme Court 1982, 64 Haw. 659)“…The Code provision covering wiretapping and eavesdropping, HRS § 711-1111, permits "consensual eavesdropping".…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Dashcam Laws: Recording Rules, Audio Consent, and Legal Limits (2026), Hawaii Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent Rules (2026), Hawaii Phone Call Recording Laws: One-Party Consent Rules for Calls
§ 711-1110.9Violation of privacy in the first degreeIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(1) A person commits the offense of violation of privacy in the first degree if, except in the execution of a public duty or as authorized by law: (a) The person intentionally or knowingly installs or uses, or both, in any private place, without consent of the person or persons entitled to privacy therein, any device for observing, recording, amplifying, or broadcasting another person in a stage of undress or sexual activity in that place; (b) The person knowingly discloses or threatens to disclose an image or video of another identifiable person either in the nude, as defined in section 712‑1210, or engaging in sexual conduct, as defined in section 712-1210, without the consent of the depicted person, with intent to harm substantially the depicted person with respect to that person's health, safety, business, calling, career, education, financial condition, reputation, or personal relationships or as an act of revenge or retribution; or (c) The person intentionally creates or discloses or threatens to disclose an image or video of a composite fictitious person depicted in the nude as defined in section 712-1210, or engaged in sexual conduct as defined in section 712-1210, that…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-03 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 7 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Hawaii courts have construed HRS 711-1110.9 in the Kaakimaka litigation. State v. Kaakimaka (2026) held subsection (1)(a) requires the device, or the person using it, to be inside the private place, and reversed a conviction where the phone stayed outside. A 2025 Kaakimaka opinion upheld the charge as drawn.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Kaakimaka (Hawaii Supreme Court 2026)✓A man stood outside a vacation home and aimed his phone at a bathroom window where a 15-year-old was showering; the court held the statute requires the device or the person using it to be inside the private place, found the evidence insufficient, and reversed the conviction.
- State v. Kaakimaka. ICA s.d.o., filed 01/31/2025 [ada], 155 Haw. 297. Opinion by Hiraoka, J. Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Opinion by Guidry J. Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part. Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 05/16/2025. S.Ct. Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/23/2025. S.Ct. Amended Order Accepting Application for Writ of Certiorari, filed 06/23/2025 [ada]. (Hawaii Supreme Court 2025)✓Charged with recording a girl showering, the defendant argued his indictment was defective because it did not define "private place"; the court held that term is an attendant circumstance whose statutory definition need not be alleged, and upheld the charge.
- State v. Olive (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 2025)“…and (b). These offenses are classified as Class C felonies. HRS § 711-1110.9(2) (2014 & 2018 Supp.). HR…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Laws on Recording in Public: Your Rights in Public Spaces, Hawaii School Recording Laws: Student Privacy, FERPA, and Classroom Rules (2026), Hawaii Security Camera Laws: Residential and Business Surveillance Rules
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Connecticut Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid Consent Rules Explained, Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, US Recording Laws by State (2026): All 50 States Explained
§ 2510DefinitionsIn forcecited in 137 of our articles
As used in this chapter— “wire communication” means any aural transfer made in whole or in part through the use of facilities for the transmission of communications by the aid of wire, cable, or other like connection between the point of origin and the point of reception (including the use of such connection in a switching station) furnished or operated by any person engaged in providing or operating such facilities for the transmission of interstate or foreign communications or communications affecting interstate or foreign commerce; “oral communication” means any oral communication uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that such communication is not subject to interception under circumstances justifying such expectation, but such term does not include any electronic communication; “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States; “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.1 So in original. The period probably should be a semicolon.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,382 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):United States v. New York Telephone Co. (1977) held that pen registers fall outside Title III because they do not acquire the contents of a communication as Section 2510(4) and (8) define interception. Forsyth v. Barr (1994) applied the same definitions, treating the defendant officers as law enforcement officers under Section 2510(7).
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Neighbors tapped an informant's home line and the overheard charges reached Dallas internal affairs; the Fifth Circuit saw no evidence the police defendants intercepted anything and held they were 2510(7) law enforcement officers, so 2517(1) and (2) allowed their use of it.
- Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (Supreme Court of the United States 1977, 433 U.S. 425)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§ 2510 et seq. 408 F. Supp., at 363 . We…”
- Gannett Co. v. DePasquale (Supreme Court of the United States 1979, 443 U.S. 368)“…of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. § 2510 et seq., be preserved prior to the d…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Surveillance Camera Laws by State (2026 Guide), Georgia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Audio, All-Party Video, District of Columbia Recording Laws (2026): One-Party Consent Rules
§ 1801Video voyeurismIn forcecited in 81 of our articles
Whoever, in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, has the intent to capture an image of a private area of an individual without their consent, and knowingly does so under circumstances in which the individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. In this section— the term “capture”, with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or broadcast; the term “broadcast” means to electronically transmit a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by a person or persons; the term “a private area of the individual” means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of that individual; the term “female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola; and the term “under circumstances in which that individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means— circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that he or she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image of a private area of the individual was being captured; or circumstances in which a…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 53 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Courts have applied 18 U.S.C. 1801 mainly at its edges. United States v. Johnson (2010) read it as Congress's answer to secretly filming nudity on federal property, acquitting on a child exploitation charge instead. EPIC v. Department of Homeland Security (2011) applied the Section 1801(c) law enforcement exception to a TSA scanner claim.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- United States v. Anthony Helton (Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 2019, 944 F.3d 198)“…from this list of federal offenses is video voyeurism under 18 U.S.C. § 1801. Rather than list this statute as an enu…”
- United States v. Johnson (District Court, W.D. Missouri 2010, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1059)✓A weightlifting coach hid a camera to film minors weighing in nude; acquitting him under the child exploitation statute, the court called that conduct plain video voyeurism under section 1801, but noted the section reaches only federal maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
- Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit 2011, 653 F.3d 1)✓Privacy groups challenged TSA body scanners under the Video Voyeurism Prevention Act; the D.C. Circuit held the statute's exception for lawful law enforcement, correctional, or intelligence activity applied to airport screening, so the section 1801 claim failed.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: South Dakota Voyeurism Laws, Utah Voyeurism Laws, Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)
Hawaii Revised Statutes, Chapter 706: DISPOSITION OF CONVICTED DEFENDANTS
§ 706-640Authorized finesIn forcecited in 7 of our articles
(1) A person who has been convicted of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine not exceeding: (a) $50,000, when the conviction is of a class A felony, murder in the first or second degree, or attempted murder in the first or second degree; (b) $25,000, when the conviction is of a class B felony; (c) $10,000, when the conviction is of a class C felony; (d) $2,000, when the conviction is of a misdemeanor; (e) $1,000, when the conviction is of a petty misdemeanor or a violation; (f) Any higher amount equal to double the pecuniary gain derived from the offense by the defendant; (g) Any higher or lower amount specifically authorized by statute. (2) Notwithstanding section 706-641, the court shall impose a mandatory fine upon any defendant convicted of theft in the first or second degree committed by receiving stolen property as set forth in section 708-830(7). The fine imposed shall be the greater of double the value of the stolen property received or $25,000 in the case of a conviction for theft in the first degree; or the greater of double the value of the stolen property received or $10,000 in the case of a conviction for theft in the second degree.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 21 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Yong Shik Won (Hawaii Supreme Court 2015, 137 Haw. 330)“…y days.” HRS § 701-107(4) (Supp. 2005). 8 HRS § 706-640(1)(e). 9 HRS § 706-60…”
- Adams v. State (Hawaii Supreme Court 2003, 103 Haw. 214)“…ssibility of suspension of sentence or parole.” Pursuant to HRS § 706-640 (Supp.1997), the maximum possible fine…”
- State v. Silva (Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals 1999, 91 Haw. 111)“…n or upon premises. (2) Simple trespass is a violation. HRS § 706-640 (Supp.1998) provides that a person conv…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Age of Consent Laws: Statutes, Penalties and Reporting, Hawaii GPS Tracking Laws: Is It Legal to Put a Tracker on a Car? (2026), Hawaii Theft Laws: Felony Threshold, Degrees and Shoplifting (2026)
§ 706-660Sentence of imprisonment for class B and C felonies; ordinary terms; discretionary termsIn forcecited in 10 of our articles
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who has been convicted of a class B or class C felony may be sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment except as provided for in section 706-660.1 relating to the use of firearms in certain felony offenses and section 706-606.5 relating to repeat offenders. When ordering such a sentence, the court shall impose the maximum length of imprisonment which shall be as follows: (a) For a class B felony--ten years; and (b) For a class C felony--five years. The minimum length of imprisonment shall be determined by the Hawaii paroling authority in accordance with section 706-669. (2) A person who has been convicted of a class B or class C felony for any offense under part IV of chapter 712 may be sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment; provided that this subsection shall not apply to sentences imposed under sections 706-606.5, 706-660.1, 712-1240.5, 712-1240.8 as that section was in effect prior to July 1, 2016, 712-1242, 712-1245, 712-1249.5, 712‑1249.6, 712-1249.7, and 712-1257.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 78 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Gaylord (Hawaii Supreme Court 1995, 78 Haw. 127)“…r alia, by an indeterminate ten-year term of imprisonment. HRS § 706-660(1) (Supp.1992). . We recognize th…”
- State v. Soto (Hawaii Supreme Court 1997, 84 Haw. 229)“…murder was a class B felony and was punishable pursuant to HRS § 706-660 (1985), 21 “which delineat…”
- State v. Rivera (Hawaii Supreme Court 2004, 106 Haw. 146)“…to the amendments made by Act 102 (1965), the commentary to HRS § 706-660 (1976) states, inter alia: In 1965…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Voyeurism Laws: Hidden Camera Penalties and Privacy Protections, Hawaii Felony Classes and Misdemeanor Penalties (2026)
§ 706-663Sentence of imprisonment for misdemeanor and petty misdemeanorIn forcecited in 8 of our articles
After consideration of the factors set forth in sections 706-606 and 706-621, the court may sentence a person who has been convicted of a misdemeanor or a petty misdemeanor to imprisonment for a definite term to be fixed by the court and not to exceed one year in the case of a misdemeanor or thirty days in the case of a petty misdemeanor. [L 1972, c 9, pt of §1; am L 1986, c 314, §41; am L 2016, c 217, §§2, 8]
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at capitol.hawaii.gov
Cited in 38 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Sprattling (Hawaii Supreme Court 2002, 99 Haw. 312)“…ment. See HRS § 707-712(1)(b) (1993), see supra note 1; HRS § 706-663 (1993). [6] Moreover, inasmuch as the…”
- State v. Murray (Hawaii Supreme Court 2007, 116 Haw. 3)“…a misdemeanor, may be imprisoned for up to one year, (see HRS § 706-663 (Supp.1992)), the court had a duty to…”
- State v. Kaulia (Hawaii Supreme Court 2013, 128 Haw. 479)“…D PACIFIC REPORTER*** of one year. HRS § 707-712(2); HRS § 706-663 (1993).19 He therefore had a…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Hawaii Jury Duty Laws: $50 Pay, Exemptions and Employer Rules, Hawaii Assault Laws: First, Second and Third Degree Penalties, Is Disorderly Conduct a Crime in Hawaii? Penalties and Trespass
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- HRS 803-42(b)(3)(A) (Hawaii Wiretap Act, one-party consent rule). A participant in a wire, oral, or electronic communication may record it without consent of the other parties, unless the interception is for the purpose of committing a criminal or tortious act.(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HRS 803-42(a) (Hawaii Wiretap Act, criminal penalty). Unlawful interception is a Class C felony, carrying a maximum of 5 years imprisonment under HRS 706-660 and a fine of up to $10,000 under HRS 706-640.(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HRS 711-1111 (Violation of Privacy in the Second Degree, misdemeanor). Prohibits installing or using a recording device in a private place without consent, covert upskirt recording, eavesdropping trespass, and interception of sounds from outside a private place. Contains explicit statutory carve-out permitting recording of law enforcement officers in public (Act 164, SLH 2016).(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HRS 711-1110.9 (Violation of Privacy in the First Degree, Class C felony). Covers recording a person in a state of undress or sexual activity in a private place, nonconsensual intimate-image disclosure (NCII), and AI-generated deepfake intimate imagery using recognizable physical characteristics of a known person.(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- HRS 803-48 (Civil cause of action for unlawful interception). Provides statutory damages of the greater of $100 per day of violation or $10,000, actual damages plus violator profits, punitive damages where appropriate, and reasonable attorney fees and costs.(capitol.hawaii.gov)
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 (Federal Wiretap Act). One-party consent exception at 2511(2)(d); criminal penalty up to 5 years; civil liability of at least $10,000 per violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 2510(2) (Definition of oral communication). An aural transfer containing the human voice under circumstances justifying a reasonable expectation against interception. Basis for the rule that silent video-only recording is not a Wiretap Act violation.(law.cornell.edu)
- 18 U.S.C. 1801 (Federal Video Voyeurism Prevention Act). Prohibits recording private areas of individuals on federal property without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.(law.cornell.edu)
- Meta Ray-Ban AI Glasses official privacy page. Documents the capture LED notification system, Meta's guidance that users should let the LED shine and stop recording if asked, and Meta's instruction to obey applicable law.(meta.com)